Hi Sergey,
Yes, you're right. It was not the intention to use qs in @Consumes. We're are looking into it and we'll get back to you.
-- Santiago
On May 15, 2013, at 5:22 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> Hi Santiago, All,
>
> I'd like to briefly get back to this thread, see comments in the end of the message
>
> On 09/04/13 14:46, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> On 09/04/13 14:31, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/04/13 17:06, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>>> Hi Santiago, All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some difficult time reading the section 3.7.2, specifically, the
>>>>> 3.7.2/3/b part, it starts from
>>>>>
>>>>> (1)
>>>>>
>>>>> "If after filtering the set M has more than one element, sort it in
>>>>> descending order as follows. Let
>>>>> a client media type be of the form n/m;q=v1 , a server media type be of
>>>>> the form n/m;qs=v2 and
>>>>> a combined media type of the form n/m;q=v1 ;qs=v2 ;d=v3 , where the
>>>>> distance factor d is defined
>>>>> below."
>>>>>
>>>>> and then it mentions, after specifying the terms:
>>>>>
>>>>> (2)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Given these definitions, we can now sort M in descending order
>>>>> based on
>>>>> ≥ as follows7 :
>>>>> • Let t be the request content type and CM a resource method’s
>>>>> @Consumes
>>>>> set of server
>>>>> media types, we use the media type max≥ {S(t, c) | (t, c) ∈ {t} × CM }
>>>>> as primary key.
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, given that a 'qs' factor comes into consideration only when a
>>>>> client Accept values are checked against @Produces values, why have we
>>>>> defined a combined media type in (1) as having 'qs' and then presumably
>>>>> using that combined media types in (2), when referring to @Consumes ?
>>>>
>>>> I think I understand why it is written this way, simply to have a
>>>> uniform algorithm text working for both @Consumes and @Produces, with
>>>> the Content-Type - @Consumes selection working with both 'q' and 'qs'
>>>> set to 1.0 by default.
>>>> My concern that some users may get an impression that for example
>>>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/xml;q=0.8
>>>>
>>>> can affect the selection of the underlying resource method which IMHO
>>>> does not make sense, because if it will affect then the client must
>>>> be knowing too much about the implementation details of the server.
>>>>
>>>> If you share this concern then I can create an ice-box issue to get
>>>> some clarifications applied to the selection algo text in 3.7.2
>>>
>>> Implementations aren't required to implement the algorithm in the
>>> same manner, they just need to produce the same results. I'm fine with
>>> adding a sentence about quality factors in content types (a new JIRA),
>>> but I think it's pretty obvious that's not the intended use of q.
>
> Right, so 'q' is obviously not for the use with Content-Type.
>
> Can you please confirm 'qs' is not for the use with @Consumes values ?
> I'm seeing a test asserting that adding 'qs' to @Consumes values affects the selection of the methods.
>
> I think 'q' & 'qs' can work in tandem in order to 1) get the right response type and 2) possibly affect the selection of the method
>
> Using 'qs' in @Consumes simply as a means to get a method selected is feasible but I wonder if it was actually intended (referring here to the spec text)
>
> Example:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> @Consumes("text/*") m1()
> @Consumes("text/plain;qs=0.8") m2()
>
> m1 wins apparently. In fact m2() can never even be selected if we take into the consideration that 'q' is not supposed to be used with Content-Type.
>
> So, do we allow for the use of 'qs' on @Consumes. IMHO it has to be defaulted to 1.0 no matter what custom values are, thoughts, comments ?
>
> Thanks, Sergey
>
>
>
>